You do realize that the federal government does allocate funding for schools in the exact same manner as highways and food stamps or housing and so on right? Outside of social security and medicare, it is all passed to the states for the state equivalent program to administer with strings attached to how it can be spent. The bulk of all of that is funded by state and local entities in the same way schools are funded. Highways are funded through a fuel tax and certain excise taxes on tires and such but the federal government has a constitutional right to establish post roads (highways)

And I didn't realize the context of your comment at first. I should have replied to the grandparent instead of you. But the manner in which taxes are collected is not an excuse, it is the order of things. The feds only have as much power as was ceded by the states via the constitution and their ability to stretch clauses beyond obvious meanings. War is a constitutional role for the federal government, schools- not so much. The same with everything else you listed. It exists as some stretch of some related power granted to congress which is why the funding is passed to the states to administrate.

The US government has never funded schools by much to begin with. It simple isn't their job to and all the funding they do give comes with strings saying how and when the funding can be spent.

The states and local municipalities largely fund schools and those political entities do not fund the wars. Your decrease funding to pay for a war might sound good but it shows a lack of knowledge on the scope and magnitude of education funding in the US.

You are correct to a degree. But this wouldn't be an ex post facto law. It would be the same as a no smoking in a public building law. It just means that actions that was once legal (smoking at the courthouse) is now not legal. So existing contracts would just become unenforceable in respect to the law after the law takes effect but nothing makes the provisions before the law takes effect illegal or punishable. This is further complicated with Calder v. Bull which sort of takes the line that only criminal laws can be ex post facto. So unless this law provides criminal punishment, the courts would likely ignore any ex post facto claims.

Now if the law says anyone who had one of these contracts before the law takes effect will be fined or imprisoned or otherwise punished, the ex post facto clause certainly would become valid. But a new law just means you have to change your behavior from the date it takes effect.

Interestingly, we have seen this ex post facto law situation with interest rates in which congress changed the rates for the Stafford student loan program to rates lower than contracted rates for a period of time from July 1 to to august 9th of 2013. H.R.1911 actually has language in it saying that it takes effect as if it was passed on July 1st 2013 even though it was signed into law a over a month later. Yet nobody challenged it.

It doesn't matter what score or moderation the parent is. I as everyone should, surf slashdot at -1 and give bonuses to troll and other down mods specifically because people with agendas will use the moderation system to hide dissent.

So to a regular logged in user, your point is largely lost unless that user is only looking for an echo chamber to agree with themselves. Otherwise, they would have modified their levels also and view low scoring post.

Not only that, these are cities which are political subdivisions of larger governmental entities who hold power and control over them. It may be impossible for them to actually ban anything of the sort if the higher political entity doesn't agree or allow it. For instance, the population of other cities in the same political entity would be bared from entering in a vehicle that is otherwise perfectly legal and registered under their laws.

Imagine France saying this vehicle is legal to purchase and drive and your vehicle registration is good everywhere except Paris who decided to make up their own rules. Not sure how that will play out but I don't think France's federal government will like being overridden that easily by a subordinate jurisdiction.

At 55-70 mph, a 600 mile trip out on day one, load or unload, and a 600 mile return trip on day two to do the same is easily doable. It is not more than 11 hours driving and with the higher speed limits, just a little over 9 hours (you will not average 70 mph for the entire trip).

But you are also forgetting team truck drivers where one person sleeps on the first shift and then takes over when the first shift driver's time is up. The team drivers could easily cover 1200 miles within a single day.

The summery says it has a sleeper and all so either scenario is doable.

She won more votes, votes of equal more men, men whose votes ARE EQUAL under the constitution, she's the President elect of the United States. Trump is hoping to be the President elect of the electoral college.

Are you trying to be oxymoronic? You simply cannot quote the parts of the constitution and ignore the specific parts pertaining to the election of the president to claim someone who failed those parts is the legit elected. Furthermore, you are basing this stupidity on the preamble to the constitution which describes the purpose for which is laid out within the constitution that you are actively ignoring.

Do they not teach simple civics and government in high school any more?

Electoral College should not try to overrule the will of the people, and Trump cannot be President with so many conflicts of interests, thats a violation of Constitutionâ(TM)s emoluments clause. You can't have a Trump Brand USA (tm)

The electoral college was specifically set in place to allow "states" to elect the president of the united "states" instead of the people. The federal government has a president of the United States not the United "People". The congress and senate is the people's house and originally the senate represented the states (which is still does to a certain extent even after the constitution was amended to allow direct elections of the senators). The house of representatives was supposed to represent the people which is why all laws implementing taxes are supposed to originate there. The senate represented the states and the president is and was a figurehead to enact the sovereignty given up by the states. You have to remember, after the revolution, the thirteen colonies became 13 countries which eventually joined a confederation which ended up forming a constitutional republic that ceded only portions of their sovereignty. This is the entire purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments and article 1 section 8 that defines the original powers of the federal government.

I don't know if you actually understand this and are simply trying to convince the ignorant to be useful idiots or if you seriously never bothered reading past the preamble and skipped school during your civics classes or something. Either way, this isn't hard to find out which you probably should have already done if you actually care about the issue as much as your post pretends to. It is not like this isn't the first time that a president has won the electoral college but not the popular vote in your life time if you are actually old enough to vote. God help us if you actually claim to be educated higher than a high school level too.

lol.. That tripe is stretching it a bit. That is unless you think blowing your nose in the presence of someone who doesn't look just like yourself is bigoted or something. In that case, you are clearly stupid or blinded by some brainwashing of some sorts.

Lets examine this huff post thing a little closer. The first thing they present is the Kahn incident. Who cares, the man used his dead son to politically attack trump and trump commented on the fact that his wife was silent during the entire stench of it. It is somewhat amazing that you would think that it is racist in some way to comment on how a party that claims to be about the rights of women and minorities puts a sharia Muslim who activly oppresses women on stage to make the case that Trump is racist when Trump points that out. Here, watch this and ask yourself why people are laughing. Then go find out more about how Muslims treat women. Hell, they just arrested a female British journalist in UAE for reporting herself being raped to the police. They say she admitted to participating in extramarital sex.

The rest is pure tripe from the all blackness have to leave to questioning Obama's natural born citizenship. That does not make someone a racist. The Jewish star over money which I have never heard of and probable neither had trump until someone contrived it to make the claim doesn't make him racist and neither does telling a group of self identified jews that he doesn't want their money because he doesn't want to be controlled. He had said that to most all groups donating to him.

I find it fascinating how much bending of reality needs to happen to maintain this Trump is a racist world view.

Just because there are women on his staff doesn't mean he is not misogynistic.

You are correct. but it does mean that he doesn't use that to discriminate in employment practices.

Well maybe you think about it saying it, but the rest of us never do, because we are not rude and crude.

More people than you realize think about saying it. In fact, I was at a bar just the other night and saw this absolutely gorgeous woman who was way above my league walk through and thought that if I could hit that, I would knock the bottom out of it so hard that she wouldn't ever forget my name. My friend who was right beside me said something to the same effect just before ordering another drink and resuming a game of pool.

That is exactly what people in power thought about Hitler at the time. They tought he could be controlled and would never rise to so much power. All the crazy people start somewhere rising up. Remember Hitler was voted democratically.

Wrong.. I don't know if you are trying to reinvent history yourself or if you are being a useful idiot but no one thought they were going to control Hitler. He pushed himself into power by using violence and threats. He actually told the nazis to put him in the party leadership or he was leaving the party, so they did. He used violence and cunning to being a plurality in the Reichstag which propelled him further. He ran against the Treaty of Versailles and was championed by the people for violating it. The people around him gave him power because they knew he would give them more power. And for those who lived, it was true until the end of WWII. But Hitler was never elected the president of Germany, he lost the only election for president he ran for to the incumbent president Paul von Hindenburg who then appointed Hitler as Chancellor- a position he eventually ended up turning into a supreme dictatorship leading to his reign of power and WWII.

History does not support your worldview in this. Google is your friend if you are afraid to get a paper cut opening a book or something.

Size and slow networking. Remember, a lot of files were shared on dial up connections. Outside of technical implementations for specific purposes, the vast majority of people's exposure to MP3 was through the use of Napster and such. This is what made it popular and with all those files in the wild there would remain a need to at least play them back.

By late 1900s, I'm assuming you meant 98-99 or later when computers commonly had storage larger than a gig or two and 1.5 meg or faster internet speeds were becoming common (although still expensive) in larger cities. I remember upgrading from a 14.4 modem to a 33.6 and bragging about the speed increases on a local BBS with an internet gateway (which eventually became one of the largest dial up services in my area). My first CDROM was larger than my hard drive (640 meg). We were trading MP3s back then- although they were mostly lectures and crap and not music which Napster popularized the format with.

Nah.. It's relatively easy to get elected to a representative seat if you aren't from one of the big states and loony in what you want. On average there are about 710,000 people in each district. If you convinve only a third of them to give you $5, you have over a million dollars to run your campaign with.

It's easier if you are part of one of the two big parties and not going for a highly contested seat but the same level of fund raising can make you one of those who pays for their election campaign if you are not up to the task of running yourself. Take that same average of 710,000 in a congressional district and divide it by 8, if one eight of those people gave you $10 to push your message, it's over $800,000 to help someone else get elected.

Now, if you actually have a gripe worth caring about, something you really think needs influencing and other agree, you can relatively easily come up with enough money and power to influence your local representative.

BTW, I have met my US representative several times and even debated him on concerns in discussions we have had. You have to convince him that your idea is as important as you think it is in a way he can also convince someone else of it's importance. It's really easy to do (at least where I live), just call up their local office and make an appointment. You will have to wait until he/she comes back from Washington but that is a regular thing (at least where I live). I also see my representatives, both for state and US government out in the community quite often too. I don't always get to talk with them, and often when I do, it is just a hello or glad to see you out type thing. They are often with their families doing family stuff. You might have seen yours out and about too. Some people don't even know what they look like because those type of seats do not normally use the expensive TV adds and many people just toss those mailers away during election season.

Or you stop giving the President so much power and make him a limited check and balance on government as the constitution originally intended.

You have a lot more control over your senator and even more over your representative when you compete with votes within a single state and even portions of that single state than you do when you compete with votes in 49 other states and the district of Columbia (Yes, Washington D.C. has electoral votes).

That's it in a nut shell. Nowhere does it state that Iraq was behind 9/11. It does state that some terrorist involved were known to be in Iraq as well as others who were against the US and that due to 9/11, the threat of terrorist getting WMDs that Iraq was believed to still be in possession of and working on was a direct threat to the United States.

This entire Iraq was behind 9/11 is just a rumor from people with short attention spans who are too lazy to pay attention to detains. Bush did go around and say 9/11 changes everything and the threat Iraq imposed needed to be taken seriously but he wasn't saying Iraq was behind 9/11

I've seen nothing from him that he is racist. At most, he is a bit misogynistic but not in any ways that actually matter as his campaign manager was a woman and he has women in leadership roles within his companies.

Trump is rude and crude at times, and has said a lot of things most people think about but never actually say publicly but that doesn't make him racist. The best you might be able to come up with is that racist groups supported him but if we go off of guilt by association when it is all them wanting to associate with you, you could call every single politician a racist terrorist.

As for Trump being crazy, I'm more comfortable with a president that all parties in congress will be comfortable throwing under the bus and backing up several times to make sure the job is done than Hillary who would be protected from such impeachment and eventually get her way with some things.

You could say that I didn't vote for Trump as much as I voted against Hillary and actually wanted that vote to defeat Hillary. Trump is controllable, Congress can go around him. It will force bipartisanship and cooperation and that will likely benefit the country more than either of the two winning or losing could ever hope to change with a law.